BXBX NOVEL Chapter 210: Spoof Comedy
Chapter 210: Spoof Comedy
Following its success, many producers tried to replicate this formula, hoping to create another dark horse. Comedy investments are typically low, usually under 50 million. With minimal promotional efforts, achieving over 100 million at the North American box office ensures a solid profit, even before considering overseas earnings. The low risk is a significant advantage.
"Horrible Bosses" emerged from this trend. In fact, New Line Cinema acquired the script by Michael Markowitz in 2005, initially discussing Frank Oz as the director. However, New Line lacked confidence in this comedic style and shelved the project.
The enormous success of "The Hangover" prompted New Line Cinema to revive the long-dormant project, enlisting John Francis Daley and Jonathan M. Goldstein to co-write the script. Both were novices, having only written scripts for the TV series "Bones" and knew nothing about film. However, their styles were distinctly fresh. John, a 24-year-old, and Jonathan, a 39-year-old, had diverse experiences in Hollywood, giving them unique perspectives while retaining fresh creative energy.
Thus, the script for "Horrible Bosses" was born!
The film tells the story of three unlucky employees. Nick\'s boss is a blatant jerk, arrogant and narcissistic, who enjoys tormenting his subordinates and refuses to promote them. Kurt\'s boss is a bald middle-aged psycho embezzling company funds while ruining Kurt\'s reputation, jeopardizing his career. Dale\'s boss is a seductive single female doctor with severe sexual harassment tendencies, constantly teasing him, making his life miserable.
These three friends, stuck in their jobs due to a poor economy, decide one drunken night, with the help of a quirky black advisor, to kill their bosses. And so, the story begins.
"Horrible Bosses" stands out with its novel and relatable concept. Everyone has faced workplace troubles, and terrible bosses make daily life a nightmare. The film taps into this common frustration with a wildly absurd approach. Its brilliance lies in creating vivid, amusing boss characters who are despicable yet not entirely loathsome.
John focused on writing the employee characters, while Jonathan crafted the bosses. Their creative sparks and wild ideas brought the six characters to life, resulting in a genuinely funny yet believable script.
The humor in "Horrible Bosses" stems from multiple sources: the oppression and frustration between bosses and employees in the first half, and the employees\' bumbling attempts to murder their bosses in the second half. The combination of situational humor, witty lines, and the actors\' earnest yet perplexed performances truly highlights the essence of comedy.
Undoubtedly, "Horrible Bosses" is a unique and hilariously absurd comedy.
Objectively, "Horrible Bosses" falls short compared to "The Hangover." The two writers are too inexperienced, making the humor sometimes seem forced and lazy. In contrast, "The Hangover" writers had previously collaborated on three films, showcasing more mature and cohesive ideas. Additionally, there\'s a significant gap in the directors\' experience. Todd Phillips already had a solid reputation before "The Hangover" with hits like "Road Trip," "Old School," and "Starsky & Hutch," while Seth Gordon was directing only his second film.
This experience gap resulted in differences in the films\' overall quality. Critical reviews reflect this: "The Hangover" scored a 73 on Metacritic, while "Horrible Bosses" managed only a 57, which is still decent for a comedy.
Despite this, "Horrible Bosses" was a hit with audiences. With the same 35 million budget as "The Hangover," it grossed 117 million in North America and 209 million worldwide, making New Line Cinema a tidy profit. New Line, now a subsidiary of Warner Bros., added another success to Warner Bros.\' portfolio following "The Hangover."
"The Hangover" later became a trilogy, and naturally, a sequel to "Horrible Bosses" was planned. However, "The Hangover Part II" was disappointing, trading box office success for critical failure, leading to a sharp decline in the future aspects of the third film. "Horrible Bosses 2" similarly collapsed, ending any plans for a third installment.
Nevertheless, "Horrible Bosses" remains a successful comedy, leaving a lasting impression.
When Renly saw the script for "Horrible Bosses," he couldn\'t help but admire Andy\'s boldness and decisiveness. From the first twenty pages, it was clear the script was refreshing, but the character challenges were significant.
Given Renly\'s age, he couldn\'t play a boss; he had to be one of the employees, each with their unique struggles.
Nick\'s character is the oppressed one. His performance in the first half is relatively straightforward, showcasing the misery and torture of an overworked employee with limited room for personal flair. However, his transformation in the second half is more pronounced, shifting from organized to chaotic, from smart elite to bumbling fool.
Kurt\'s character is the conflicted one. Beneath his kind-hearted facade lies the struggle with his greedy, disgusting boss. This character is interesting, appearing as a typical upright person but becoming foolish when defenses are down, creating a hilarious contrast.
Dale\'s character is the harassed one. Essentially, he has to remain composed while facing constant inappropriate advances from his boss. His awkwardness and panic when directly attacked are hilarious. He\'s not a hyper-masculine type like Dwayne Johnson but more of the vulnerable friend in a buddy comedy.
Each character has its charm and challenges. Renly felt that Nick\'s role was the easiest, with less depth and range, mainly acting as the film\'s straight man to keep it from becoming too slapstick. Kurt and Dale offered more nuanced performances, with Dale\'s being the most transformative. However, Renly found the boss roles even more challenging and intriguing, though his young age made him unsuitable for those parts, despite his old soul.
Renly wasn\'t well-versed in comedy scripts but recognized that the main flaw of "Horrible Bosses" lay in its less distinct employee roles. The bosses were sharply defined, providing ample room for standout performances and numerous laughs. In contrast, the employees\' characters were somewhat muddled, with similar traits of foolishness, frustration, and confusion, leading to repetitive humor and fewer sparks.
If the writers had developed clearer arcs for the employees, corresponding to the bosses, the overall quality would have improved. Not in terms of character depth or performance intensity, but in the characters\' unique humor styles and comedic personas—after all, comedy\'s primary goal is to make the audience laugh, which is also the actors\' main task.
Even so, tackling a comedic role, any of the three employees, would be incredibly challenging for Renly. Comedy\'s performance style and rhythm differ from drama, and even acting foolishly requires real comedic talent to make the audience laugh.